build system

[Eric Poggel (JoeCoder)]

On 10/26/2011 2:55 PM, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 2:51 PM, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 2:30 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> I think the best approach would be to have a complete language for the
>>> build scripts.
>>
>> This is the approach I've taken with dsource.org/projects/cdc. That
>> language is D. It provides a library of common compilation tasks and
>> then you fill in the main() with what you want it to do. Then you can
>> simply invoke dmd -run buildscript.d to create your project.
>>
>> At one point it worked with d1 and d2 with ldc, gdc, and dmd, phobos or
>> tango. But it's been a year or so since I've tested.
>>
>> It can also be used as a pass-through tool to dmd, gdc, or ldc, except
>> it accepts source paths as well as source files (adding all files in the
>> path to the build). But rdmd may already do this better, since cdc
>> currently lacks any concept of an incremental build.
>
>
> But my point here isn't so much to promote CDC, bur rather to insist
> that we should use D instead of a custom language invented for the task.
> Reasons:
>
> 1. D will always be more powerful. And you will have all of phobos at
> your disposal. You can parse xml, ftp files, etc.
> 2. Anyone writing this script will already know D. They won't have to
> learn another language.
> 3. We'll truly be eating our own dog food. Although I wouldn't call it
> dog food.

4.  It will be easier to implement.  A library of functions instead of a 
complete parser/interpreter.  CDC is boost licensed if anyone wants to 
borrow from it.